Legal aspects of responsibility for publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media (a study in UAE law)

Abstract

This study outlines the legal aspects of the issue of responsibility for publishing or re-publishing misleading information on social media sites through four aspects: criminal liability, civil liability, identifying which court has jurisdiction over civil liability lawsuits, and applicable law to civil liability. The study concluded with the criminal and civil liability of the perpetrator of the act of publishing or republishing; the cases of jurisdiction of the Emirati court in civil liability claims; determining the law applicable to those cases, and other findings and recommendations, the most important of which were: the UAE Penal Code criminalizes this behavior and punishes it with a sentence of three to fifteen years imprisonment and a fine not exceeding one million dirhams. Regardless of the fairness of this punishment, no incident or court ruling is reported where the application of this punishment to the crime took place. Social media sites are known to be rife with misinformation and rumors, however, people who published or helped spread this information were not prosecuted, which may be due to the difficulty of tracking those who published this information or helped spread it technically. In this regard, the study recommends that relevant authorities develop their technical methods, such as the use of artificial intelligence in tracking the source of publishing that information and holding them accountable in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Introduction

There is no doubt that rumors are gaining great momentum on social media due to many factors, perhaps the most important of which are: the re-transmission of content without ensuring authenticity or credibility, the speed and breadth of spread through social networks, the ease of hiding the source of the rumor or who is behind its launch, especially with the spread of fake accounts on social networking sites and the availability of techniques for falsifying images and videos, which allows users to give false credibility to the content of the rumor. Additional factors contributing to the ignorance of most consumers of the truth is the lack of specialized centers to monitor and combat rumors and false news in times of crisis.

Rumors take many forms, including fabricated content aimed at deception and harm, forged content that impersonates real sources, and misleading content that manipulates information in a misleading way to achieve an unlawful purpose, in addition to sarcasm or ridicule that may also cause misleading¹ (El-Khoury, 2020).

The current COVID-19 is a demonstrating case for spreading rumors on social media. A primary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the widespread implementation of policies of social distancing, which has led to the primary reliance on communication through social media. This has led some to exploit this matter by spreading false and misleading rumors and news about this pandemic, which has affected individuals, institutions, different sectors, and even countries (Raha et al., 2021). It may be said that these rumors have spread with a greater area and speed than the pandemic itself, and have caused harm to individuals, companies, institutions, and countries more than the damage caused by the pandemic by afflicting many people with horror, panic, depression and mental illness (Dai, Sun, & Wang, 2020; Tasnim, Hossain, & Mazumder, 2020), and affecting many companies such as airlines, tourism, hotels, restaurants and theaters, cinemas, shops, and other sectors, as well as harming the economies of many countries (Abd Al-Latif Dahiya, 2021; Bali & Desai, 2019; Depoux et al., 2020; Mohammed Salah Abdullah Mohammed, 2021).

Freedom of opinion and expression in the United Arab Emirates is guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 30 of the UAE Constitution states:

“Freedom of opinion and expressing it verbally, in writing, or by other means of expression is guaranteed within the limits of the law.”

It is evident from this provision that the restrictions imposed on freedom of opinion and expression are bound by constitutional and legal limitations. These restrictions focus on a set of obligations imposed on individuals and media outlets, aiming to protect the interests of the state, citizens, or society. They function in constitutional legislation as indicators that determine the degree of freedom, protect the individual, and maintain the balance between the interests of the individual, society, and the state.

Accordingly, the restrictions contained in legal rules are constitutional because they are included in laws issued based on the Constitution. Therefore, legal restrictions related to freedom of expression and opinion imposed by laws, if they are not consistent with the state’s Constitution, are considered legally void. Thus, the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression and opinion must be consistent with the state’s Constitution to exercise the right to freedom of expression.

These restrictions aim to ensure the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, as well as the interests of society and the state. They should not unduly diminish the freedom of individuals and media outlets. Therefore, the restrictions imposed on media freedom must meet the following conditions:

• 1. Established by Law: They must be enacted through laws issued by the legislative authority.

• 2. Constitutional Foundations: They must be based on principles stipulated in the state’s Constitution.

• 3. Proportionality: They must be proportionate to important constitutional objectives and the threats posed to the rights and interests of the state, society, and citizens.

• 4. Clarity and Precision: They must be formulated with sufficient clarity and not with vague terms subject to the discretion of authorities.

• 5. International Compliance: They must not conflict with international treaties related to human rights in general (Hussein & Kadhim, 2022).

Based on the above, the restrictions contained in Federal Decree-Law No. (34) of 2021 on Combating Rumors and Cybercrimes in the UAE meet the aforementioned conditions and are not considered a violation of the Constitution or Article 30 of the UAE Constitution. Among these restrictions are those stipulated in Chapter Two of that law, such as content crimes and publishing rumors and false news (“provocative propaganda”), crimes of calling for and promoting the disruption of the provisions of the Constitution and laws, crimes of promoting terrorist groups, publishing information to harm the interests of the state, crimes of inciting to harm security, promoting sedition, and harming national unity. These are crimes that harm the interests of the state and public order and constitute a restriction on the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression.

The importance of expressing opinions often lies in its impact on society and in making political decisions. Therefore, the UAE Constitution in Article 30 ensures freedom of expression, similar to other Arab constitutions like the Jordanian and Iraqi Constitutions. For instance, Article 38 of the Iraqi Constitution states: “The state guarantees, without violating order and morals, freedom of expression of opinion by all means” (Al-Shammari, 2018).

The right to freedom of expression is considered one of the fundamental human rights, as it contributes to defending other rights and freedoms. To achieve this freedom efficiently, facilitating means of communication requires easing the exchange of ideas, opinions, and information. This necessitates attention to the media environment, as it provides the main platform for expressing opinions (Al-Nimr, 2019).

Among the recent studies that dealt with the issue of responsibility for publishing information on social media, Ramdoom (2018) in her study, examined the legal responsibility of publishing misleading headlines on the electronic press and concluded that the media is one of the most influential forces in the lives of societies and the culture of individuals, especially after the major technological development in the field of information communication technology (ICT). Today, it can be said that electronic journalism is harnessing what has been achieved by information technology in an objective and rapid manner. For that, the legislator sought to protect the freedom of the press and to surround it with a set of principles and values that guarantee its objectivity. And not to violate the obligations through article headlines in a manner consistent with the content of the published article, given that the engineering of topics is the most important thing on which the content is based. Otherwise, the legal responsibility of electronic journalists will be established.

In a more recent study, Suwaiqi (2021) indicated the role of the legal system of the stock exchange in protecting investors from misleading offers. The stock exchange considers the transferred values as a framework for organizing and conducting operations with regard to the transferred values issued by the state, other members of the public law, and shareholding companies. To ensure transparency in the stock exchange trading process, the bodies that oversee its administration and management must be regulated in accordance with well-crafted laws. Indeed, this is what the Algerian legislature has done. In its concern to improve the functioning of the market in transferred values, the Committee for Regulating and Monitoring Stock Exchange Operations is empowered as an independent regulatory and supervisory authority with the aim of achieving economic control and protecting investors from misleading offers. This is to give serious consideration to the offers made by companies whose shares are accepted in the stock exchange. The legislator also regulated the functions of brokers in stock exchanges who are considered the driving force in the market for transferred values.

Further, Belhaji (2021) In her study on the economic and legislative challenges of the electronic press and print media, pointed out that in recent years, the biggest media change took place after the emergence of new channels of communication for broadcasting news, similar to electronic news sites and social networks, which in turn led to the emergence of several models of consuming, producing and using those channels that are different from traditional media.

In more recent study, Harby (2021), shed light on the danger of rumors and their dissemination through social networking sites leading to criminal and civil responsibility in the Egyptian law which require a concerted effort among all parties to deal with.

In summary, the extant literature has discussed the issue of spreading rumors and misleading information through different types of media from different lenses. The current study, however, outlines the legal aspects of the issue of responsibility for publishing or re-publishing misleading information on social media sites through four dimensions: criminal liability, civil liability, identifying which court has jurisdiction over civil liability lawsuits, and applicable law to civil liability. The novelty and importance of this study are evident from the fact that previous studies did not address the question of the jurisdiction and the applicable law to such cases.

Consequently, the research question that has driven this study becomes apparent and it focusses on identifying court jurisdiction over lawsuits and liabilities for social media posts and reposts under UAE law, and how the perpetrators are prosecuted.

The objective of the study is to answer these questions for the purpose of clarifying the cases of jurisdiction of the UAE court over the claims of legal responsibility arising from the act. And to clarify the criminal and civil liability of the perpetrator and the law that rules civil liability. To this end, this paper aims to provide a general taxonomy to broaden the understanding of such a legal perspective. More specifically, this paper aims to identify:

• 1. The criminal liability the perpetrator is to have for this act.

• 2. The civil liability the perpetrator is to have for this act.

• 3. The competent court to hear cases for this act.

• 4. The relevant law to be applied to that responsibility.

The implications and results of such a study, after appropriate analysis of those issues, would undoubtedly have a significant impact and would form an appropriate basis for future studies dealing with the topics of the study, such as those relating to criminal and civil liability for wrongful acts on social networks, or studies assessing the performance of courts in cases of responsibility for such wrongful acts.

These illegal actions on social media are criminalized in many countries (Tompros, Crudo, Pfeiffer, & Boghossian, 2017; Watney, 2013) including the Arab countries (Arafa, 2020; Kabha, Kamel, Elbahi, & Narula, 2019). This study aims to explain the legal aspects of this behavior in these laws. Since the law across Arab countries very similar, especially with regard to civil liability, as they come from the same sources in many of these laws, namely Islamic law (Lombardi, 1998), this study will be limited to studying one of those laws, which is the UAE law as an example of how this issue is dealt with in Arab laws.²

The person’s criminal liabilities for re-publishing misleading information on social media sites is established when the conditions are met (i.e., When the element of the charge are made out), and their criminal liability may then lead to civil liability if damages ensue. As is known, such conduct is committed through electronic means such as the mobile phone and on the Internet. The perpetrator of the conduct and the affected persons may have different nationalities and do not belong to one country or jurisdiction and are present in many countries’ jurisdictions. This matter raises legal problems, perhaps the most important of which is related to identifying the competent court with the jurisdiction to hear the case and the determination of the relevant law applicable to it within each jurisdiction. Accordingly, studying the legal aspects of the responsibility for publishing or re-publishing misleading information on social media requires addressing criminal liability, civil liability, and then indicating the jurisdictions of the United Arab Emirates court, and then addressing the various aspects of the law applicable to civil liability. The following four sections discuss these four dimensions. Conclusions with recommendations end this study.

Criminal liability for publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media

In line with the information technology revolution and the potential harms that may result from its use of people and society together, the Emirati legislature has criminalized many acts committed by means of information technology. Perhaps the most important of these acts is the unlawful actions committed by users of social networking sites, such as disseminating misinformation, news that harms the state or society, charging fees, and other actions mentioned by the Emirati legislature in the relevant UAE laws. The Federal Penal Code (# 3/1987)³ and in the Federal Decree Law No. 34 /2021on combating rumors and cybercrimes⁴ states the crime of spreading rumors and false information; article 198 bis of the Federal Penal Code stipulates that:

“Shall be sentenced to detention, whoever deliberately diffuses false or tendentious news, information or rumors, or spreads provocative propaganda should it lead to disturbance of public security, cause panic among people or be prejudicial to the public interest”.

Similarly, the UAE legislator in the law on combating rumors and cybercrime criminalizes the publication of information that endangers the interests of the state or affects the public security of society. Article 22 states that “Shall be punished by temporary imprisonment and a fine of no less than 200,000 dirhams and not in excess of one million dirhams whoever establishes, manages or oversees a website or uses information on the Web, or information technology means with the intention of inciting acts, publishing or broadcasting information, news, cartoons or any other images that would endanger the security of the State and its supreme interests, or prejudice public order….”

In regard to criminal liability of the perpetrator of the act of publishing or republishing misleading or false information on social media, two basic pillars are required: the first is the physical element of the crime (the actus reus), which consists of three elements of action, result and a causal relationship between them, and the second is the mental element (the mens rea), which relates to the criminal intent.

It is clear that the material element is made out when a user of social networking sites partakes in the positive action of publishing or re-publishing false information through social networking sites or applications.

The mental element of criminal intent can be made out when its two elements of knowledge and will are present. It may be inferred that when a person publishes, re-publishes, or shares information with others, they are aware that this is what they are doing and do so intentionally. This fulfills the mental element, even if the person does not know that the information is incorrect, as long as they can know the extent of its credibility from the competent sources in the country. There is a legal duty for every person who publishes, re-publishes, or shares certain information to ensure that the information they publish is correct, and if they choose to do so without making an effort to check its credibility, then they have failed their responsibility. Thus, the law does not accept the defense of not knowing the incorrectness of the information as long as the publisher is able to know but chooses not to do so, for example, to gain a head start in publishing.

Accordingly, the criminal liability of the user of social media sites for publishing or re-publishing misleading information is established when he or she performs the acts of publishing, republishing, transferring, or sharing incorrect information, as recently has been the case about COVID-19, for example. It is not a defense to believe that this information is correct as long as he or she is able to ascertain its lack of credibility. Moreover, there is no difference in terms of criminal liability and the penalty prescribed for it, between who published the information for the first time and who re-published it or shared it with others. The law considers the act of republishing to be a contribution and participation in the act of publishing, and thus its perpetrator is to be held accountable.

The mental element of criminal intent (mens rea) comprises two essential components: knowledge and intent. When an individual publishes, republish, or share information with others, they are aware of their actions and intentionally engage in them—they know that they are disseminating information, and they desire to do so. This fulfills the mental element, even if the person does not know that the information is incorrect, as long as they could have determined its credibility from competent sources within the state and made no effort to verify it.

There is a legal obligation for every person who publishes, republishes, or shares certain information to ensure the accuracy of the information they disseminate. The law does not accept the defense of not knowing the inaccuracy of the information if the individual could have verified it but chose not to, possibly to gain an advantage by being the first to publish.

Therefore, the perpetrator of the act of publishing remains subject to conviction if they published the information with an honest but mistaken belief that it was accurate, provided they could have verified its credibility from competent sources and failed to make any effort to do so. They are also liable for the act of publishing rumors even if they did not have a specific intent to incite others when publishing or republishing those rumors. The absence of specific intent to provoke does not exempt them from liability if their actions meet the criteria of the offense and they neglect their duty to verify the information.

Needless to say, the UAE legislature punishes the user of social networking sites in this article solely for incitement or attempted incitement, even if she or he does not succeed in their endeavor to plant ideas in readers minds or to provoke a state of panic or terror among members of society or to disrupt the economic interests of individuals or the state, or to compel others to certain behavior which is harmful to the interests of individuals and institutions. The mere positive act of publishing statements, drawings, pictures, or video scenes with the intention of creating a state of panic or terror, is considered a crime. The UAE’s Federal Supreme Court confirmed this in the case of conduct related to terrorist or state security offenses in the following provision⁵:

“The crime of incitement to commit a terrorist crime is realized by simply pushing others to commit a terrorist crime, and the perpetrator’s will is directed at creating the idea of the crime in the mind of the perpetrator, knowing that the activity of the perpetrator affects the psyche of the latter. The Emirati legislature punishes incitement without any attendant consequences in terrorist crimes.”

The Emirati legislature has set the penalty for this crime as imprisonment from three years to fifteen years and a fine not exceeding one million dirhams if the offense was committed through social media. However, if the same offense was committed by traditional means, the legislature in Article 198 bis of the Law Federal penalties have set a lighter penalty, which is one of imprisonment not less than a year.

In this regard, a question may arise about the criminal liability of some who publish or re-publish true and correct information or news on social media sites. So, should the perpetrator of that act be criminally liable? Or is their criminal liability only if the information is false or untrue? Such an issue is considered a breach of the privacy of that person, company, or institution, and whoever publishes, re-publishes, or shares that content is criminally liable for breach of privacy according to Article 44⁶ of the Federal Decree law No. 34 on combating rumors and cybercrime.

In reference to the provisions of the federal law on combating rumors and cybercrime, it was found that the legislator in Article 44 Paragraph 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of no less than six months and a fine of no less than one hundred and fifty thousand dirhams and not in excess of five hundred thousand dirhams, or either of these two penalties, whoever publishes News, electronic images, photographs, scenes, comments, data or information, even if it is true and real if the publication of such information constitutes an attack on the privacy of a person in cases other than those authorized by law.

For example, it can be said that the publication or republication of information, news, electronic images, photographs, video clips, comments, or data related to a person’s COVID-19, or even to a person working in an enterprise or company with COVID-19, even if that information is true, in circumstances other than those legally authorized, is a breach on the privacy of that person, company or institution, and the person who published, republished or shared that content is subjected to be legally questioned and to the aforementioned punishment.

In fact, even if the legislator has criminalized publishing or re-publishing actions on social networks, the real obstacle is to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice. There are undoubtedly many violations and abuses of the law with regard to illegal posting on social networks. The dilemma in holding the perpetrators accountable in practice is the difficulty in following them in some cases, such as publishing illegal information, which is circulated on social media platforms, and is republished among thousands of people in a short time.

A viable option for such a problem would be to resort to technical means to trace the source of such information and the people behind its dissemination and promotion or the people who have assisted in publishing or facilitated dissemination by providing electronic means or websites that facilitate the dissemination of such information as an example.

Regarding the extradition of criminals, particularly those committing cybercrimes, this matter is governed by international agreements for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE has entered into numerous international treaties with various countries to regulate the extradition of criminals. Notable examples include the agreement between the UAE and Turkmenistan, the agreement between the UAE and Italy, and the agreement with Uzbekistan, among others.

If a perpetrator commits a crime that is not punishable under UAE law and the UAE is bound by an extradition treaty with the perpetrator’s country, the terms and conditions of that treaty will govern the extradition process. Conversely, in the absence of a specific extradition agreement, the principle of reciprocity is applied. This means that the UAE will treat the requesting state under the same conditions that the requesting state treats the UAE. For instance, if a particular country does not extradite criminals to the UAE, the UAE will reciprocate by not extraditing criminals to that country and vice versa.

This framework ensures that the UAE can effectively cooperate with other nations in combating cybercrimes while adhering to established legal protocols and respecting the sovereignty of partnering states.

Civil liability for publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media

A person may still be litigated civilly for publishing or republishing misinformation on social media, even if they have been criminally charged, as long as the elements and conditions of each claim or charge are fulfilled (Al-Shehabi, 2016).

The basic principle is that where a plaintiff has suffered a loss through being a victim of a crime, they are able to bring forward a civil claim for compensation. However, in many circumstances, criminal charges may be charged without any civil claims made, for example, in traffic offenses or carrying weapons without a license. These are crimes that do not inflict specific damages to individuals that can be compensated for. On the converse, a civil claim may occur without an accompanying criminal charge if the committed act is not legally defined as a crime yet resulted in harm, such as liability for competition other than lawfulness, inadvertently destroying others’ money, and work injuries (El-Jammal, 1996).

Article 297 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law⁷ stipulates that:

“Civil liability, once its conditions fulfilled, shall not impair criminal responsibility, and the criminal penalty shall have no bearing on determining the scope of civil liability and the assessment of damages.”

Civil liability is divided into contractual liability based on a breach of a contractual obligation and default liability based on breaching a legal obligation not to harm others (Al Jamal, 2010) as Article 282 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law stipulates that “The author of any tort, even if not discerning, shall be bound to repair the prejudice”. It is clear from this text that the general rule is that every act that causes harm to others may be compensated. Cause of harm can be broken up into two elements: a positive act or omission, whether intentional or arising from negligence, and loss or damage caused by this positive act or omission.

In the context of this study, this is the legally authority for suing someone for tortious liability for publishing and re-publishing misinformation on social media. The defendant is civilly liable, where criminal culpability has been established as well as particular damages to a victim. Where a criminal charge is laid but no damage to a victim is established, civil liability is negligible, and a civil claim may not be brought forward.

The affected persons may be multiple, and the responsibility of the person who has published or republished can only be envisaged if the conditions and elements⁸ (the act of damage, damage, and the causal relationship between the two) of the tort are met (Al-Sarhan & Khater, 2012). For such liability to be incurred, the act (of publication or republication) must have caused the damage. Article 292 of the UAE Code of Civil Transactions stipulates that a guarantee must be a natural result of the harmful action.

If the wrongdoer’s liability is established and cannot be denied, compensation is required for the injury suffered. The Emirati legislator has expressed compensation in the term “security”, which means the money owed to the victim by the person who caused the damage to themselves, their property, honor or feelings.

Applying this principle, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, in a recent judgment ordered the defendant to pay one million dirhams in compensation for material damages suffered by the plaintiff. ⁹ In another case, the court ordered the defendant to pay three million dirhams in compensation for similar offenses.¹⁰ These rulings demonstrate the substantial financial liabilities that can result from the dissemination of false information on social media, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal obligations and exercising due diligence when sharing information online.

The damage that the defendant is liable for is the direct damage, when it has actually occurred (Al-Momani et al., (2015); Nawwaf Hazem Khaled & Khalil Ibrahim Mohamed, 2011), which is the damage that is a natural consequence of the act of publishing or re-publishing misinformation or news on social media. In application of this principle, the Abu Dhabi Court in a recent judgment decided that the guarantee is assessed based on the loss or damage suffered by the injured party and the profits they have foregone, provided that this is a natural result of the harmful act and that the harm has been realized either actually, immediately, or ultimately. Potential but unrealized damages are not subject to compensation unless they have been realized.¹¹

The harm resulting from this type of crime encompasses damage in both its material and moral forms. This includes moral damage such as fear, panic, and psychological problems, as well as material damage that may be inflicted on the state, individuals, institutions, or companies. It is conceivable that the state suffers many material damages, such as economic loss as a result of incorrect rumors, where natural persons, companies, or institutions, suffer damage as a result of rumors, including if the victim is a tourism company affected by loss of revenues due to the publication of false information on social media, or a restaurant or shopping center that is forced to close or loses its customers, or an airline that is damaged due to the closure of airports, and many other examples of material damages that may affect both individuals or companies and the state.

The amount of compensation that the victim is entitled to as a result of publishing or re-publishing false information is estimated according to the specific law applicable to tort liability and on which grounds and considerations. The amount of compensation varies from one incident to another according to the damage that occurred as a result of the offense and the extent to which it contributed to the specific damage. The extent of the damage caused to the victim is highly variable, thus the court uses experts to determine the objective damage caused to the victim, the extent to which the offence caused this, and the amount of compensation which the court may deem appropriate in the circumstances.

Usually, there are many responsible for the act of publishing or reposting on social media, and in this case each of them is responsible for compensation for the percentage of their contribution to the most recent damage. For example, someone with a large following who shared misinformation that reached a large segment of society will not be held to be equally culpable for damage to someone who only disseminated misinformation to a small number of people. In all cases, the judge may rule equally, jointly, or interdependently¹² and if the aggrieved party contributes to publishing or re-publishing false content on social media, then the judge may reduce or refuse to award compensation.¹³

The legislature decided in Article 298 of the Civil Transactions Law that the lawsuit claiming compensation for the offense of publishing or republishing will not be heard after 3 years have passed from the date the victim knew that the damage occurred and who is responsible unless the criminal lawsuit is heard after the lapse of three years.

“1—An action for damages arising from an unlawful act is prescribed after three years from the date upon which the victim knew of the injury and the identity of the person who was responsible.”

Jurisdiction of UAE courts (civil and criminal) in claims involving publication or republication

The crime of publishing or re-publishing incorrect information through social media is carried out using electronic means from mobile phones or computers, communication networks and other technological means, and the use of these electronic means raises many legal questions. The most important of these is the determination of which court has the jurisdiction to hear the compensation lawsuit for these offences and the law applicable to them (Gillies, 2016), because these actions are often by persons belonging to more than one country and residing in different places.

It is recognized that if the legal relations in dispute are national relations, then the matter is within the jurisdiction of the national judiciary and a local court shall have jurisdiction over the matter depending upon the territorial, value, or qualitative jurisdiction determined by the legislature, however, where the offense involves a foreign element, the judge subject to the dispute shall have to decide on a preliminary issue related to determining whether the state’s courts have the jurisdiction to examine this legal relationship or not, before applying any law.

There is no way for the Emirati judge to address this issue except by using the rules of international jurisdiction established by the legislature to determine the cases in which the UAE courts have jurisdiction in examining disputes that involve a foreign element. These rules can be divided into three sections, which are jurisdiction rules based on personal and regional controls, jurisdiction controls based on the type of case, and jurisdiction controls based on the art of organizing judicial litigation.

If the compensation lawsuit is filed before the civil judiciary, the Emirati legislature outlined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Procedures Law four scenarios whereby the international jurisdiction of the UAE courts is established due to general personal grounds, based on the legal position of the parties to the case, and these scenarios are: if the defendant is an Emirati citizen; if the defendant is a foreign national who is residing in the UAE; or in the case where there are several co-defendants with foreign nationalities and the UAE is the residence of one of them. It is sufficient for the jurisdiction to be established based on the availability of one of these grounds, regardless of the type of lawsuit, and besides these grounds no other grounds to establish jurisdiction are required.¹⁴

In a case filed before the Abu Dhabi Primary Court,¹⁵ where the defendants were foreigners holding Jordanian nationality, the court accepted the lawsuit on the basis that the defendant was a foreign national domiciled in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and issued a judgment on August 6, 2013. The facts of this case involve the plaintiff inadvertently sending her photographic images to the defendant, who then published them on his Facebook page, causing harm to the plaintiff. The court applied UAE law and ultimately ruled against awarding compensation to the plaintiff because she failed to prove that the defendant was the one who published her images on Facebook.

In another case,¹⁶ filed before the Abu Dhabi Primary Court on February 17, 2014, where the defendants were foreigners holding Egyptian nationality, the court accepted the lawsuit and decided to proceed on the grounds that the defendant was a foreign national residing in Abu Dhabi. The facts of this case involve the plaintiff being a member of a Facebook page, and due to the relationship with the defendant, the latter was able to obtain the plaintiff’s password without her consent, access her Facebook page without her knowledge, and control it, preventing the plaintiff from accessing it. The defendant managed conversations with the plaintiff’s friends and clients without her knowledge. The court concluded that the defendant’s actions—disabling the plaintiff’s Facebook page, impersonating the plaintiff, and managing conversations in her name with her friends in Abu Dhabi—caused harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff AED 5000 in compensation under UAE law.

These cases demonstrate that UAE courts have established their jurisdiction to hear cases related to electronic misconduct and have issued rulings based on the fact that the defendant in these cases was a foreign national domiciled in the UAE.

The Emirati legislature also held, in paragraph 3/21, that the jurisdiction of the national courts may be established on a regional basis. Accordingly, the legislature decided that the Emirati court has jurisdiction in a lawsuit that relates to any incident that occurred within the UAE territory. The paragraph stipulated that:

“The courts shall have jurisdiction to examine the actions against the foreigner who has no residence or domicile in the state in the following cases: ….. 3) If the action is concerned with an obligation concluded, executed, or its execution was conditioned in the state or related with a contract required to be authenticated therein or with an incident occurred therein or bankruptcy declared at one of its courts.”

In the event that compensation is claimed before the criminal court, the claim would be accepted only if the criminal court has jurisdiction over that case. The criminal judiciary shall have jurisdiction over the criminal case if the Federal Penal Code No. (3) of 1987 or the Law on Combating Rumors and Cybercrime applies.

As in the case of crimes that occur outside the country and are subjected to the UAE law, for example, crimes against the security of the state or those committed by a citizen abroad, or in the cases where the crime occurs in the UAE territory, the offense is then considered to have been committed in the UAE region, in accordance with the provisions of Article (16) of the Federal Penal Code¹⁷.

Accordingly, the crimes that occur through social media are considered to be committed in the UAE region, and the Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction over the compensation lawsuit related to it, if the practical element of the crime occurred in the UAE territory, or any of its elements were fulfilled, and the practical element consists of behavior, consequence, and the causal relationship between them.

It is possible for the act to be committed within the UAE territory and the consequences are realized in the UAE, or it may be committed outside the country, and the consequences are realized in the UAE territory. Alternatively, it may be committed in the UAE, and the consequences are realized outside it, or the act may be committed outside the country, and its consequence is not realized there, but it was intended to be realized, but for some reason this result has not been achieved, in all of these assumptions the act is considered to have been committed within the UAE territory, and the state’s courts shall have jurisdiction over compensation claims related to it.

For example, a person from within the UAE uploads, publishes, re-publishes or shares false information about Covid 19 on a social media application that harms other people residing outside the country is liable to be prosecuted, as is someone who uploads that data outside the country and the damage is caused within the country since the injured is a citizen or a resident in the state. In these cases, the crime is considered committed in the UAE territory and the UAE court has jurisdiction to hear the compensation lawsuit related to it.

Based on the foregoing, the person affected by the crimes that occur through social networking sites has two ways to demand compensation for the harm they have suffered, and they may take either of them:

(1) The first way is to claim compensation before the Criminal Court, and for this to be permissible, the harm must be the result of criminal behavior that is being dealt with in the criminal court (unity of reason in the two lawsuits). In this case, the criminal court shall be competent to hear the claim for compensation, and it shall rule on the two cases together and by one judgment unless the exception stipulated in Article (26) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fulfilled, which states that:

“Should the criminal court deem that deciding on the damages claimed by the plaintiff asking his civil rights or the accused requires a special investigation which may delay the settlement of the criminal case, it shall refer the civil action to the competent civil court.”

In such cases, the criminal court issues a decision to refer the claim for compensation to the competent civil court (Al-Jundi, 2009).

(2) The second way is for the victim to file a civil lawsuit before the competent civil court, whether before the criminal lawsuit is initiated or during the course of it. In these cases, the civil court judge must suspend the adjudication of the civil case until the criminal case is decided upon (Hosni, 1988) pursuant to the rule of “the criminal suspends the civil”.¹⁸ It is well-established that if a compensation judgment is issued by the criminal court, the convicted party does not have the right to claim additional compensation in a civil court. Furthermore, if the convicted party is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the criminal court, their only recourse is to appeal to the competent Court of Appeal within the designated appeal period.

In the event that none of the criteria previously stated to determine the jurisdiction of the UAE court with cases arising from the act of unlawful publication is met, some jurisprudence (Harding, 2013) considers that the criterion of targeted activities should be followed. The idea of this criterion is that the competent court to hear cases involving certain electronic activities, practices or acts is the court of the State to which those activities or acts are directed or the State targeted for such practices. As a result of directing an activity or work to the territory of a state, a strong link is established between the dispute and that state, and sufficient contact is achieved between the work, the activity, and that country. The country most closely related to a particular activity or work is the country that targeted that work or activity, and the court of the target country is the court competent to consider disputes related to those practices or works, given that those actions were concentrated and localized in them.

For example, if unlawful information relating to the State of the United Arab Emirates is published or republished through social media, the UAE court is competent to hear the proceedings that ensued, since the dispute was related to the State of the UAE, the Emirati society was the target of such conduct and the criminal outcome had been realized in that country.

The judiciary in some countries, such as the United States, has taken this approach. It decided its jurisdiction in some cases based on the fact that the website directs its activity to the local community. In other cases, it decided not to have jurisdiction because the website’s activity was not sufficiently connected with the local community.

In a case brought before a New Jersey court by an American company against an Italian hotel company,¹⁹ the Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, on the grounds that the defendant did not perform any work and had no affiliates in the state of New Jersey, and that the defendant’s posting of advertisements on the Internet about certain features of the hotels that they owned, such as their description of the rooms and hotel facilities and information on the number of rooms, was not an activity directive to the state of New Jersey. In another case, the Illinois State Court of the United States made a similar judgment,²⁰ that it did not have jurisdiction in the case because the defendant’s activity was not adequately related to the local community.

The US Court of Indiana,²¹ in a case filed before it with jurisdiction to hear the case, on the ground that the defendant (Continental Health Care Group) and its Internet activity directed towards the State of Indiana, and the court concluded this finding on the basis that the defendant sent approximately (80) e-mails to the plaintiff and this behavior constitutes a significant level of activity directed at the State, resulting in the dispute being linked to its courts and subject to its judicial and legislative jurisdiction.

The Arizona State Court had decided on a similar judgment²² where the court had a judgment that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought before it on the grounds that the defendant, a computer software company that had no domicile in the State, had concentrated its activity in the State. The court concluded that its connection with the dispute was based on several considerations, including the number of customers of the company who were residents of the State, the size of visits to the company’s location by residents of the State, and the amount of financial returns that accrue to the company as a result of the deals it concluded with its clients who are citizens of the state.

There is no reason why this approach should not be taken in the UAE, where the Emirati judge can infer that the wrongful act of publication is directed at Emirati society, and that the connection between the dispute and the Emirati court is established. This will result in the Emirati court to be competent to hear disputes relating to the act.

Conflict of laws on the issue of compensation for the crime of publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media

The UAE legislature has included in the Civil Transactions Law a conflict rule related to specifying the law that is applicable to non-contractual obligations (the obligations arising from the harmful act or the unlawful act (tortious liability)), and the obligations resulting from the beneficial act (unjust enrichment) (Sadeq, Abdel Aal, & Haddad, 2006).

For the establishment of tort in the UAE law there is no condition for the occurrence of the perpetrator’s error or intention. Even if their act was legitimate, or the perpetrator of the act was a person who was not identifiable, the purpose of the UAE law in the compensation lawsuit is to make reparation.²³

Emirati law has based this provision on the provisions of Sharia Law, which does not require compensation for harm that results from a mistake by the perpetrator, as it suffices to assume responsibility for the occurrence of damage for this act. The purpose, according to the provisions of Sharia law is reparation for the harm. The perpetrator of the act, although not identified, was legitimate and resulted in harm, and thus is responsible for compensation. It is better for them to reduce financial liability by compensating for the amount of the damage, and not the financial liability of the injured person. In the end, damages lead to a decrease in a person’s financial responsibility, and Sharia law holds that it is fair that the lack of financial liability is for the cause of the damage, even if a person is not identified or their act was legitimate and did not result in a mistake from them (Al-Khafif, 2000; Al-Kubaisi & Haswa, 2017; Al-Zarqa, 1988).

Article 20 of the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that:

“1. Non-contractual commitments shall be governed by the law of the State where the incident causing the commitment takes place.

2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply regarding commitments arising from an illegal business, and such with regards to the incidents carried out abroad and considered legal in the United Arab Emirates, even if they are deemed illegal in the country where they take place”.²⁴

It is clear from this text that the law applicable to compensation for non-contractual obligations is the law of the country in which the act occurred, whether this act was a beneficial or a harmful act.

The legislature, in the second paragraph, established an exception to this rule, which stipulates that it does not apply where an act took place in a different jurisdiction where it was deemed unlawful, but it is considered lawful in UAE law. This means that the law of the country in which the act occurred is not applied unless this act is considered illegal in UAE law, too. Therefore, the UAE legislature requires, in order to apply the law of the country in which the indictable act took place, that this act be unlawful in both the UAE law and in the law of the country in which this act occurred (Salama, 2002).

Undoubtedly, the text of Article (20) of the Civil Transactions Law can be applied to compensation for social media crimes, such as the crime of publishing or re-publishing incorrect information.

As mentioned above, a crime committed on social media is considered to be committed in the UAE territory, and the compensation arising from that crime is subject to the rule of Emirati law, if any of the acts constituting this crime were committed in the UAE or if its result was achieved or was intended to be achieved in the UAE.

Accordingly, compensation arising from information technology crimes is subject to the rule of UAE law if the following four elements are fulfilled:

First: verification of the material element of the crime of publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media with all its elements, in terms of behavior, result and causal relationship between them in the UAE region.

Second: committing the act in the UAE region, regardless of where the harm was achieved, for example, when a person from within the region publishes or re-publishes incorrect information on social media, causing harm to a person residing outside the UAE region. In this scenario, the UAE is considered to be the place of the occurrence of the harmful act, and the jurisdiction of the Emirati law is held by virtue of compensation for such damages.

Third: the result of the crime of publishing or re-publishing incorrect information on social media in the UAE has been realized.

Applying the above, the Dubai Court of Cassation ruled the jurisdiction of the UAE courts in the case because the criminal result was realized in Dubai²⁵ The summary of the facts of the case in which this ruling was issued is that the defendant sent an email to the plaintiff threatening her to publish her personal photos to all internet users in the country. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit before the Dubai Court of First Instance, and the defendant defended these charges before this court and then before the Court of Appeal based on the lack of jurisdiction of the courts. His defense was rejected; therefore, he filed an appeal before the Dubai Court of Cassation, which held that:

“Whereas the appellant mourns for the appealed judgment the error in applying the law and the lack of jurisdiction of the Dubai courts to hear the case … and since that was the impugned judgment that was established by rejecting the defense of the lack of jurisdiction of the Dubai courts to hear the case on the basis that the crimes attributed to the appellant have achieved its result in the Emirate of Dubai by receiving the e-mail message when browsing her e-mail at her residence in the Rashidiya district in Dubai. And since that was that and the appealed ruling had established its court of refusal to claim that the Dubai courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, it would have struck the right of the law, and preventing the appellant in this regard is not valid … ”.

In another criminal case filed before the Court of First Instance in Dubai, the subject of which is public defamation of rumors that affect the honor and presentation of the victim and make it a subject of contempt, by publishing on the Elaph electronic newspaper website. The Court of First Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the case on the grounds that the publication was made in London and that the accused resides in London.²⁶ The Public Prosecution was not satisfied with this ruling and challenged it by appeal. The Court of Appeal decided that

“since that was the case and it was established from the papers that the incident in question was published on the Elaph website and that the victim when she viewed the website while she was in Dubai, saw the news in question, and then it is the result of The act has been realized in the Emirate of Dubai and the crime is deemed to have taken place in the territory of the State…”.

Fourth: The intention of the perpetrator of a crime to publish or republish incorrect information on social media is for the effects of their publication to be realized in the UAE territory. Even if the result is not realized in the UAE region, it is sufficient to consider this act to have been committed in the UAE and to establish the legislative jurisdiction of UAE law simply with the establishment of the intention of the perpetrator to realize the result in the UAE region.

Fifth: The jurisdiction of the UAE criminal judiciary in regard to a claim for compensation for damage suffered from the crime of publishing. As long as the jurisdiction over the crime is held by the UAE judiciary and compensation is claimed before this judiciary, compensation is also subject to the rule of UAE law.

It is clear from the foregoing, that if any of the cases in which the jurisdiction of the UAE law falls fails to be established for compensation arising from cybercrimes, the jurisdiction falls to a foreign law. It may be plausible for the law to create an assumption that the material element of the offense took place in the location where its consequences are felt, in which case the law of that country is applied to the compensation arising from that crime. However, this is something that rarely occurs in crimes of social networking sites because the products of the material element of the crime are distributed in more than one country, such that the act is committed in one country and the harmful consequences in another, which raises the difficulty in determining the jurisdiction.

Moreover, it is not possible to implement the rule of conflict of laws included by the UAE legislature in Article (20) of the Civil Transactions Law, which determines the applicable law when the mental element (mens rea) of the crime is fulfilled in a particular country, as the mental element differs from one country to another.

Prior to the technology era, some tried to determine the applicable law in such assumptions, and different opinions appeared in this regard. The view of the place of the error was prevalent, which is the view that the law concerned with the rule of tort liability is the law of the location of the act or the error (Al-Lafi, 1994; Ezz El-Din, 1954; Ibrahim, 1998; Jaber Gad, 1969).²⁷ This is because the rules of tort responsibility mainly aim to protect society from illegal acts, thus the place in which the illegal act took place is the sound criterion which any legal liability requires. The exact location of the tort may be difficult to determine, and the occurrence of the tort may be distributed among several countries. It is not fair for the wrongdoer’s behavior to be subject to a law that he or she is unable to understand, and this behavior must be subject to a law of which he or she knows or should know, such as the law of the place of error.

Another prevalent view is one which considers the focus of the law must be on the place of consequence (El-Kasabi, 2004; Mansour, 1956; Riad & Rashid, 1998).²⁸ Here, the imbalance between the interests the law aims to protect must be established. Thus, consequences arising from the illegal act must be concentrated in the place where the damage occurred to legally establish the essential element of liability for the tort according to its recent development (Al-Rubi, 2013).²⁹ Using this view to apply the law in regard to liability, a challenge may be faced in cases where there are many illegal acts that occur in more than one place.

However, it is difficult to adopt one of these views to determine the law applicable to civil liability for acts occurring through social media. Those acts, and in particular the act in question, may be committed by persons in more than one country. The publishing, republishing, transfer, or sharing of content on social media applications often occurs among people who are in more than one country. The same can be said of the damage that may occur as a result of that act, which often occurs in more than one country, making it difficult to focus on actions or damage in a particular country to apply according to either the ‘location of consequence’ or ‘place of error’ methods.

In determining the law applicable to compensation arising from cybercrime in the case in which the material element of the crime (the misinformation) is distributed in more than one country, the views have also varied in this regard to the application of one of these laws: the law of the uploading country, the law of the receiving country, or the law of the country in which protection is sought, or defining the law on the basis of the idea of directed activities. A discussion of these opinions follows.

First: The law of the country of uploading or receiving

With regard to crimes of intellectual property, defamation or contempt that occur on the internet, there are advocates for both the application of either the law of the country where the upload takes place or the law of the country of downloading or receiving. Data is transmitted on the Internet in two ways: it is uploaded by one person and received by another (Hillier, 1998) the applicable law would be either the law of the country where the upload occurs or the law of the country of reception.

Advocates for the law of the uploading country argue that the uploading country is the country most closely related to the harmful act, as it is the starting point in committing the act, and is where the electronic means that were used to commit the harmful act are located, and where the decision was made to download the harmful data.

Others (Al-Hawari, 2012) argue the applicability of the law of the country of reception on the basis that the right holder feels the financial loss, and that the tort occurred in this place. It is the place of retrieving or downloading the material (Salama, 2000), which is the place of reception or the realization of the harmful consequence of the act.

One of the key critiques of this methodology is that, given the possibility of obtaining and receiving data stored on social networking sites in most countries, the responsibility of the perpetrator of the act of aggression can be determined according to the laws of all countries in which it is possible to receive such information, which could be a place to retrieve or dump false information (Lucas, 2001).

Second: The law of the country in which protection is requested

With regard to compensation for cybercrimes related to intellectual property, some (Ahmed AbdulKarim Salama, 2002) see the applicability of the law of the country whose protection is requested as being the applicable law, based on several arguments, the most important of which are the following (Al-Hawari, 2012; Salama, 2002).

First: when a person is injured in an act that occurred through the internet initiates litigation in a country claiming that the resultant harm or the majority of it, has taken place in that country, the law of that country becomes applicable (Salama, 2000).

Second: This approach is followed in certain international conventions, such as the Bern Convention as amended on September 28, 1979, on the protection of literary and artistic property, which decided in the second paragraph of Article Five that:

“The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed”.

Third: It is often necessary to seek protection from cybercrime in the country in which a person is domiciled, which would result in the necessity of the establishment of the jurisdiction of the courts in his/her home or place of residence.

The most prominent jurisprudence tends in most cases to apply the law of domicile or residence to the vulnerable party, as is the case in consumption contracts, and to give the injured party the right to choose the law applicable to the liability suit on the basis that it is the most favored party (Salama, 2000).

Conclusion

After addressing the primary question of this study and discussing the legal aspects of liability for publishing or republishing incorrect information on social networking sites within the relevant UAE laws, it has become evident that the UAE legislator imposes differing penalties based on the medium through which the offense is committed. Specifically, when the act is carried out through traditional means, the penalty is imprisonment for no less than one year. In contrast, if the offense is committed via electronic means, the punishment escalates to provisional imprisonment ranging from three to fifteen years, accompanied by a fine not exceeding one million dirhams. This discrepancy highlights the need for standardization in punitive measures. We advocate for the Emirati legislator to harmonize the penalties, ensuring that the punishment remains consistent—imprisonment from three to fifteen years and a fine not exceeding one million dirhams—regardless of whether the act of illegal publication is executed through traditional or electronic means. This uniformity ensures that the severity of the punishment aligns with the nature of the offense, promoting fairness and legal coherence.

During the discussion, it was indicated that tracking down people who commit such acts constitutes an obstacle to the application of the law, and this matter constituted a restriction on a study in the failure to reach any incident or judicial judgment regarding the application of the aforementioned penalties, bearing in mind that social media sites are known to be full of information and rumors that are false and misleading. However, we have found no indication that the persons who published or assisted in the publication of this information were prosecuted, and this may be due to the difficulty in tracking the persons who published this information or assisted in publishing it from a technical point of view. In this regard, we call upon the concerned parties to develop their technical methods in this regard, such as using artificial intelligence to trace the source of the publication of this information and to hold them accountable in accordance with the provisions of the law. We can draw valuable insights from the experiences of countries that have effectively utilized artificial intelligence (AI) in crime tracking, such as the United Kingdom, which is a pioneer in employing AI for crime prevention. The UK police departments have implemented advanced technologies to analyze and develop strategies for crime prevention, including the use of predictive mapping software in police vehicles and handheld devices.

Since 2004, law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom have been utilizing predictive technology. With advancements in machine learning, the UK has introduced facial recognition technology, video and criminal behavior analysis, phone data extraction, and social media information analysis. Additionally, they have developed predictive crime mapping and individual risk assessment tools. For instance, the West Midlands Police employ an AI program capable of predicting the likelihood of convicted criminals re-offending, achieving an accuracy rate of up to 75%.³⁰

With regards to civil liability for the crime in question, the perpetrator of such a crime is liable, and they are asked for monetary compensation for the moral injury suffered by the victim, as assessed by the Court on certain grounds and considerations.

With regard to the jurisdiction of Emirati courts in cases related to this offense, the UAE Court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil proceedings for that crime, if the Penal Code of the United Arab Emirates is applicable. The Penal Code of the United Arab Emirates governs the offense whether the perpetrator is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates or a component of the material element of the crime took place in Emirati territory or if the result has been achieved or is to be achieved in the United Arab Emirates.

If none of the previous criteria for determining the jurisdiction of the United Arab Emirates Court is met, we propose to the Emirati legislature to adopt the criterion of directed activities to determine the connection between the act of publication and the Emirati territory, and thus the jurisdiction of the Emirati court over the cases arising from that act. The directing of the act of publishing illegal information to the Emirati territory is undoubtedly a sufficient link between the wrongful act and the Emirati Court, which justifies the Court’s jurisdiction over the actions arising from that act.

With regard to the law applicable to the civil aspect of the criminal case, namely compensation, it is concluded that it is difficult to apply the conflict of laws rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Code of Civil Transactions if the claim for compensation for that crime involves a foreign element, such as the act being committed outside the United Arab Emirates. Article 20 refers to the application of the law of the state in which that crime took place; this is not easy to establish in electronic crimes, as the place of the offense is often difficult to determine.

One of the solutions proposed regarding the designation of the law on the provision of compensation for the crime of publishing or republishing misinformation on social media is for the law of the state whose protection is sought to be applied. This is for several reasons, the most important of which is, the fact that the law of the state whose protection is sought absorbs and is very similar to the directed activity criterion, and because the introduction of this law achieves the protection required for the weaker party in the legal relationship, which is the party affected by that crime, because that party is given the opportunity to determine the law that would bring reconciliation and also to bring proceedings before the court that would provide the process of proceeding to a court in its home country and will not have the hardship of relocation and bear the expenses of filing the proceedings far from its home.

One final note regarding the freedom of speech and expression—there is no doubt that it is one of the most important intellectual or mental freedoms and it is also one of the most important political freedoms. It is a freedom connected to thought because it relates to a person’s right to think and to have his own opinions, beliefs, and personal ideas derived from his experiences, knowledge, and sources of information. It is also a political freedom, relating to the right to participate in politics, considering its importance in guiding politics and forming political beliefs towards issues of the country and even the world around us. The UAE Constitution emphasizes the freedom of expression and opinion, as stated in Article 30, which declares the freedom of expression and opinion in speech, writing, and all means of expression, within the limits of the law. This freedom is protected within the limits of the law, and criminalizing some acts of publication on social media sites is not a violation of this freedom. The protection of such texts is a public interest, and criminal acts threaten the security and interests of the state. Moreover, while an individual who engages in illegal publication activities is not required to make amends for the harm inflicted in the context of freedom of expression, they are, nonetheless, liable for compensating any damages caused to others due to their actions.